Why Mateen Cleaves' lawyers say sex assault dismissal should stand

Mateen Cleaves’ attorney says a district court judge was justified in dismissing the sex assault case against the former Detroit Piston and MSU basketball star.

The 25-page response to Wayne County Prosecutors was filed by Cleaves’ attorney, Frank J. Manley, on Wednesday, March 8 after a two-week extension granted by Judge Archie Hayman. It argues that now-retired Genesee District Judge M. Cathy Dowd had the authority to dismiss the case at the preliminary exam level as there was “insufficient evidence on the elements of the charged crimes.”

Scroll through to learn more about why Cleaves’ attorney argues Dowd was justified in dropping the charges.

Oona Goodin-Smith I MLive.com

'Exam performed its proper function'

While in their appeal of the case, prosecutors argued that Dowd ‘failed to recognize the limits of [her] authority” in dismissing charges in the preliminary examination, Manley says that the exam “performed its proper and critical function because the prosecutor did not present sufficient credible evidence providing probable cause to believe that the charged offenses were committed.”

Dowd dismissed the highly-contentious case against Cleaves on Dec. 5, after finding "insufficient evidence" to bind the Flint native over to circuit court to stand trial on the charges.

Prosecutors promptly appealed the dismissal of the sexual assault charges against the former Michigan State basketball star on Dec. 19.

Cleaves, 39, was arraigned in March 2016 on multiple felony charges, including counts of unlawful imprisonment and criminal sexual conduct, and was free on a $150,000 personal recognizance bond.

Manley also wrote that Dowd was within her jurisdiction to evaluate the credibility of the woman accusing Cleaves of sexual assault.

The brief states that the woman was the “only witness who testified about what took placed [sic] in Room 121 at the Knights Inn on September 15, 2015” and that therefore Dowd was “entitled to consider her credibility in light of all the evidence presented.”

Manley points to the “complainant’s demeanor” during testimony and that “the judge put on the record that she noticed Complainant looking to the prosecutor’s table for answers to defense counsel’s questions” and “gave evasive answers.”

“She claims she was concerned about being with Mateen, but when she was left in his car [outside the motel] with the keys in the ignition and the engine running, she did nothing to extricate herself from the situation, e.g. lock the doors, honk the horn, get out of the car, or drive away,” the brief says.

The brief also says the woman “argued with counsel” regarding her use of hydrocodone and asked the police detective for bra back that she wore the evening of the incident, explaining that “it was expensive and she liked it.”

“This is not a reaction that would be expected of a truly traumatized sexual assault victim,” Manley writes.

Prosecutors previously asserted that Dowd dismissed the case only on the “perception that the victim was evasive when answering certain questions on cross-examination,” specifically focusing on a line of questioning on the woman’s possible intake of hydrocodone from Manley.

To allow the district court to dismiss the case “based on mere belief” about the truthfulness of the alleged victim, “invades the province of the jury in our system of criminal justice,” prosecutors argued.

In their appeal brief, prosecutors argued that the complainant’s testimony alone can be sufficient to support a conviction of criminal sexual conduct.

Manley, however, counters that “the operative term is ‘can be.’” He writes that the woman told “quite different tales” to witnesses, police and at the investigative subpoena hearings.

Manley also writes that the “prosecution’s argument on the unlawful imprisonment charge unavailing” because she texted Cleaves about coming to the bar, “struck up a conversation…and enjoyed lemon shots with him,” left the bar with Cleaves “instead of going home with her live-in boyfriend,” and “did not mention anything about an assault [to police] even though he specifically asked if she had been assaulted.”

The decision of Cleaves’ guilt, prosecutors argue, was not up to Dowd, but a jury in circuit court.

“To dismiss a case as the district court did, because some aspects of a victim’s testimony – not even relevant to proving the charges – were impeached flouts legal precedent and province of the jury by deciding the ultimate question of guilt,” the brief states.